Dr Reva Gudi is GP and healthcare leader in Hayes, Middlesex, she is also a former Conservative parliamentary candidate, and serves as a local school governor and charity trustee. 

Of late, following on from more scandals, standards rows and ministerial controversy, I asked myself whether the Nolan Principles of public life are still fit for purpose. Perhaps outdated? Too idealistic? Impossible to live up to in modern politics?

And yet, as expected, UK political parties either implicitly or explicitly ask candidates to sign up to the Nolan principles, as the ethical standards of public life.

As a GP working in the NHS, I’m held to the same standards, if not higher.

In 1995, Committee on Standards in Public Life articulated seven principles intended to underpin public office in the United Kingdom: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.

3 decades on trust in politicians is fragile, arguably, the lowest it’s ever been.

After giving this a great deal of thought, I’ve concluded that the problem is not the principles themselves, but us.

Putting myself forward as a parliamentary candidate at the 2024 General Election, on the doorstep, I noticed something telling. When I introduced myself as a GP, there was an immediate assumption of integrity with trust extended almost instinctively. The title itself carried expectations of candour, duty and care. When I then added that I was a political candidate something shifted. The warmth cooled ever so slightly. The scrutiny sharpened, as I expected, and the exchanges were a touch more sceptical.

Doctors consistently rank among the most trusted professionals in the country. Politicians do not. And yet both are bound, at least in theory, by the same ethical framework: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. Not radical aspirations but rather the minimum moral standards of public life.

It then struck me that asking whether we should rethink the Nolan Principles in politics, was asking the wrong question.

The real question, I believe, is whether political culture has drifted so far from ethical expectation that the principles now feel aspirational rather than operational.

Because politics today plays out in a relentless media cycle, where statements make headlines and conspiracy theories do the rounds. Social media rewards outrage more than nuance, with AI backed content that is getting more sophisticated by the minute. Tribal loyalty can crowd out independent judgment. In such an environment, compromise can be seen as betrayal, or dithering, all error is framed as incompetence, (understandably, though), and political disagreement is often conflated with moral failure. Add to this the constant pressure to win, to retain authority, self-preservation, all in an unforgiving electoral cycle.

However, none of the above renders the principles obsolete. If anything, it makes them even more necessary.

The world of medicine, where I have spent most of my working life, offers a useful contrast. In clinical practice, honesty is comparatively straightforward. A test result is abnormal, or it is not. Evidence supports a treatment or it does not. The doctor–patient relationship is built on trust, and candour is expected.

On the other hand, politics is more complex. Policies involve trade-offs. Economic forecasts are uncertain. Negotiations require discretion. Honesty is not optional that can be set aside when circumstances become complicated. It must sit alongside judgment. Knowing when to speak, how much to disclose, and how to protect sensitive negotiations is not the same as misleading. There is of course a need to recognise the clear moral line between careful laying out facts in sequence, and intentional falsehood. Transparency at every moment is not always compatible with effective governance, and every decision made, will usually have winners and losers in the electorate.

Let’s take the two-child benefit cap. It was introduced on the grounds of fiscal restraint and fairness to working taxpayers and criticised for its impact on child poverty. Parties, across the spectrum, take different positions, with differences within the party, and you will see positions evolving when moving from opposition to government, when confronted with economic realities. It is where ideology, competing principles, compassion, redistribution, fiscal sustainability and electoral mandate collide head on. It does illustrate how political decision making rarely involves a single moral axis.

It is within this terrain that ethical standards must operate.

One can argue that the Nolan Principles are unrealistic in the rough-and-tumble of modern political life. I disagree. If anything, those who wield power over millions should be held to higher standards, not lower ones. Decisions about taxation, welfare, defence and public services shape lives at scale. But we must also acknowledge that democracy is inherently adversarial. Cross party consensus, which often exists, stays behind closed doors.

I quickly learnt that expecting politics to feel like a consulting room is naïve. Expecting it to be ethical is not.

To me there exists an uncomfortable truth: Signing up to the Nolan Principles, as a doctor, feels intuitive; as a political candidate, can sometimes feel ceremonial.  Ministers affirm them, Councillors sign codes of conduct. Yet public cynicism persists.

So, what can we do?

If left up to me, I would say instead of strengthening the wording of the principles let’s strengthen the culture and consequences surrounding them. Standards must be reinforced by meaningful accountability, by incentives that reward integrity rather than performative outrage, and by a collective refusal to excuse evasiveness when it suits our side. Ethical public life is sustained by consistent application of the principles, alongside signing a code of conduct.

As citizens we too, have a role. If we demand honesty but reward outrage, if we condemn compromise yet expect delivery, if we treat every unpopular decision as evidence of possible corruption, we contribute to the erosion of trust we claim to lament. Trust is reciprocal and cannot be legislated for.

So, should we rethink the Nolan Principles?

No. We should reclaim them, as they are enduring moral standards.

What has changed is the intensity of scrutiny and the speed of judgment. The answer to that pressure is not to dilute our standards but to live them more deliberately. We know that public life will never be flawless; democracy is too human for that. But abandoning shared ethical commitments because they are difficult would be a far greater failure.  To be honest, the real question is whether we have the steadiness across parties and across society, to uphold them, in an environment that tests them relentlessly.

After all, politicians, and medical professionals alike are capable of integrity and of failure.

The principles endure. The question is whether we do.

Cllr Tony Devenish represents Knightsbridge and Belgravia Ward on Westminster City Council. He is a former member of the London Assembly.

I knocked on a front door ahead of the May 7th 2026, Council Elections. A 20-something Gen Z opened the door on a chain lock and shouted:

“I voted for Keir Starmer. I will never EVER bother voting again!“

Then she slammed it shut in my face.

The cost of living is hurting young people, and Starmer is looking increasingly tired and middle-aged.

So Councils and Mayors need to answer this urgent question:

How can we appeal to Gen Z?

How can we serve anyone who is under 30 years of age?

I am now in my 20th year as a Westminster City Councillor and a former London Assembly Member. This demographic isn’t my natural comfort zone.

Opinion polls report that two-thirds of young women are considering voting Green and similar numbers of young men may vote for Reform UK.

I recommend a carrot rather than a stick: offer a 100 per cent rebate on annual council tax for those under-30s who volunteer for community leadership roles. That might mean working a few hours a week as a volunteer in a community-run sports club, a library, a rough sleeper charity or perhaps even becoming a Police Special. With unemployment hitting young people worse than at any time since the 1990s, the more work experience on offer, the better.

And we definitely can afford the loss of council tax income. The Treasury can cap any steep loss in Council tax for Councils with disproportionately large numbers of Gen Z. Participating as community volunteers may save the taxpayer billions of pounds over the medium and long term. An example of joined up budgeting, that the public sector often talks about, but rarely achieves.

Cheaper energy for Gen Z and all of us : Councils must continually pressurise Ed Miliband to honour his manifesto promise to reduce energy bills and ensure that Whitehall passes on the funding to make Gen Z’s (mainly) landlord housing better insulated.

City living: 20 somethings still want to live in our cities. Despite that, at the recent excellent Conservatives Together inaugural graduation, I was concerned to hear that a 2024 Tory parliamentary candidate had moved to Hampshire, even though he worked in Central London. Councils have, with one or two exceptions, an appalling record on building new homes. Labour-run Westminster City Council all but eliminated intermediate housing for young professionals so that they could build more homes for those trapped on welfare. Shamefully, not one single new home has been initiated in the last three years by Westminster Council. So it’s no surprise that supply and demand rental costs continue to crush Gen Z aspiration.

Safe streets : younger people are disproportionately victims of crime. The solution is not the one proposed by Reform UK’s “Vigilante Mum”. The real solution is joined up enforcement between the police and Council local eyes. I-phones enable rapid real time reporting of crime. When the police want to, they are capable of assembling responsive teams to crack down on crime, including masked cyclists snatching phones, watches and handbags. Councils and Mayors must ensure that this is the norm.

On Con Home last year, I outlined how Councils can get young people working. I agree with New Labour’s Alan Milburn that Councils must be at the forefront of the fight to ensure no young person is a NEET (Not In Employment , Education or Training). Successive Governments since Covid: now five years’ ago, have negligently left hundreds of thousands of Gen Z to live their lives as NEETS.

Milburn recently described the existence of NEETS as:

“A moral, social and economic crisis.”

We Conservatives agree.

Councils and Mayors must stop waiting for Government to act. We need to come up with the practical solutions that embrace Gen Z, or else they will turn to the Greens or Reform UK or other radical alternatives.

Finally, a plea to all young people. Please get involved in the May 7th local elections and more widely in our democracy. Our politics is dominated by older generations because they are the ones who always vote. Crime, our Environment , Housing, Jobs and the NHS  are all issues that matter, no matter how young you are.

Don’t let others decide your future.

Postscript : I have completed my three years’ as an elected member of the CCA Councillor Board (London rep). I wanted to thank Con Home, CCHQ, all Conservative Party members , especially our councillors for the honour to serve. Clr John Cope and I hope to see many of you at Harrogate Spring Conference on March 6th-8th. 

On Wednesday 4 March, Metropolitan Police officers arrested three men on suspicion of assisting a foreign intelligence service. Their charge is contrary to section 3 of the National Security Act 2023. Sky News have reported that officers arrested a 39-year-old man in London, a 68-year-old man in Powys, Wales, and a 43-year-old man in Pontyclun, Wales. They are all now being held in custody for the alleged offences. Of particular concern, one of those arrested is David Taylor, husband of Labour MP Joani Reid.

Since, Joani Reid has made a public statement on her husband’s arrest and requests privacy for the sake of her and her children.

“I have never seen anything to make me suspect my husband has broken any law.”
East Kilbride and Strathaven MP Joani Reid has released a statement following the arrest of 3 men on suspicion of spying for China 👇 pic.twitter.com/lILYJwiVn7

— LBC News Scotland (@LBCNewsScot) March 4, 2026

Reid’s statement in full:

“I have never seen anything to make me suspect my husband has broken any law.

I am not part of my husband’s business activities and neither I nor my children are part of this investigation, and we should not be treated by media organisations as though we are. Above all I expect media organisations to respect my children’s privacy.”

The East Kilbride and Strathaven MP said: “I have never been to China. I have never spoken on China or China related matters in the Commons. I have never asked a question on China-related matters.

“As far as I am aware I have never met any Chinese business whilst I have been an MP, any Chinese diplomats or government employees, nor raised any concern with ministers or anyone else on behalf of, even coincidentally, Chinese interests.
“I am a social democrat who believes in freedom of expression, free trade unions and free elections. I am not any sort of admirer or apologist for the Chinese Communist party’s dictatorship.”

Labour — ‘Assisting a foreign intelligence service’

Reid’s husband, Taylor, is listed on the MP’s register of interests as the director of the lobbying firm Earthcott Limited. According to Sky News:

The investigation relates to China, police said, adding that the arrests were supported by the Welsh and Scottish branches of Counter Terrorism Policing.

Commander Helen Flanagan, head of Counter Terrorism Policing London, said: “Today’s arrests are part of a proactive investigation and while these are serious matters, we do not believe there to be any imminent or direct threat to the public relating to this.

This has prompted calls from the Liberal Democrats to review the UK governments controversial decision to approve China’s ‘mega embassy’ in the heart of London. Lisa Smart, their Cabinet Office spokeswoman said:

How many times must we all come to this House to hear a report of further rounds of arrests under counter terrorism legislation for this government to take this action?

Security Minister Dan Jarvis said he understood the Liberal Democrats’ concerns. Nevertheless, he tried to reassure them that the government had based its decision regarding China’s embassy on strong national security grounds. Meanwhile, Father of the House and Conservative MP Sir Edward Leigh argued that the government should pause the embassy plans until China “learns to behave.” He also called on the British government to summon the Chinese ambassador.

Notably, Speaker Lindsay Hoyle appears to have confirmed that the MP’s husband did not have a pass to access the parliamentary estate. This reassurance came after a question about privileged access came from Tory Ben Obese-Jecty.

Tory MP Greggory Stafford has also insisted on the release of all correspondence relating to China that the Labour MP was privy to. Stafford suggested the MP “sits on a select committee that would have information which is sensitive, maybe even secret”. They also raised concerns that they may have visited defence sites across the UK:

Has there been and will there be an urgent review of what sensitive information that Member of Parliament might have been party to?

And, at the appropriate juncture, would he release any correspondence between his department and that Member of Parliament around things like the Chinese embassy and other matters related to China?

Review into foreign financial interference

Philip Rycroft is currently leading a review into foreign financial interference in the UK’s political and electoral systems. Security minister Jarvis reassured MP’s that Rycroft is independent to the government and will undoubtedly reflect on the events today to inform his review further.

The review itself, of course, is being conducted independently by Philip Rycroft.

He will report by the end of this month which means – and of course, it is independent – that is absolutely time and space for him to reflect on any events that have taken place recently.

Advertisement

Adding that the review:

will inform government policy, not least in terms of cracking down on some of the foreign money – all of the foreign money – that should not be.

If confirmed, this is a serious national security concern. The arrest of David Taylor, partner of Joani Reid, over suspected spying for China could raise major questions about foreign influence and political security. pic.twitter.com/Qn3nBZpyMb

— Diggy (@Digvija73188705) March 4, 2026

Featured image via twitter

Israel deployed a massive array of cyber warfare technology to kill Iran’s leader Ali Khamenei. The genocidal settler state prepared for years, hacking and penetrating Iranian systems ahead of its assault on the country.

The US and Israel attacked Iran first on 28 February without provocation. Iran was offering unprecedented concessions at the time. The Pentagon has since stated there was no imminent threat from Iran. And the UN’s atomic watchdog, the IAEA, has said there is no evidence Iran was developing a nuclear weapon.

An investigation by the Financial Times explains the staggering power and reach of the technology involved. A caveat: anything unnamed intelligence sources willingly tell the press must be taken with extreme caution.

The spooks hacked traffic cameras:

Nearly all the traffic cameras in Tehran had been hacked for years, their images encrypted and transmitted to servers in Tel Aviv and southern Israel, according to two people familiar with the matter.

Once information was gathered:

Complex algorithms added details to dossiers on members of these security guards that included their addresses, hours of duty, routes they took to work and, most importantly, who they were usually assigned to protect and transport — building what intelligence officers call a “pattern of life”.

The years-long operation allowed Mossad and the CIA:

to determine exactly what time 86-year-old Khamenei would be in his offices this fateful Saturday morning and who would be joining him.

Mobile phone towers

Spies took over mobile phone towers. The (presumably Israeli) sources said they were:

able to disrupt single components of roughly a dozen or so mobile phone towers near Pasteur Street, making the phones seem as if they were busy when called and stopping Khamenei’s protection detail from receiving possible warnings.

One bragged:

we knew Tehran like we know Jerusalem.

And when you know [a place] as well as you know the street you grew up on, you notice a single thing that’s out of place.

Israel’s signals intelligence outfit, Unit 8200 were central to the operation:

Israel used a mathematical method known as social network analysis to parse billions of data points to unearth unlikely centres of decision-making gravity and identify fresh targets to surveil and kill, said a person familiar with its use. All this fed an assembly line with a single product: targets.

You can read some of our reporting on this shadowy unit here.

Israel and the US attacked first

The reporting highlighted how Israel and the US were the aggressors in the rapidly expanding war. One section explains:

When the CIA and Israel determined that Khamenei would be holding a meeting on Saturday morning [28 February] at his offices near Pasteur Street, the chance to kill him alongside so much of Iran’s senior leadership was especially opportune.

The report continues:

They assessed that hunting them down after a war had properly begun would have been much harder, since the Iranians would quickly embark on evasive practices, including heading underground to bunkers immune to Israeli bombs.

On 2 March defence secretary Pete Hegseth, who believes Jesus wants him to attack Iran, bizarrely claimed:

We didn’t start this war, but under President Trump, we are finishing it.

Notwithstanding the fact that claim is chronologically false, the Financial Times reports shows that the attack was the result of a “years”-long process. The US and Israel wanted a regional war. Now they have one. And they seem to have no plan for what to do next.

Featured image via Aljazeera

The Turkish Ministry of National Defence says NATO air defences intercepted an Iranian missile heading for its airspace.

The missile passed over Iraq and Syria before NATO defences intercepted it.

The Turkish Ministry of Defence said:

A ballistic munition launched from Iran, which was detected passing through Iraqi and Syrian airspace and heading towards Turkish airspace, was engaged in a timely manner by NATO air and missile defence assets stationed in the eastern Mediterranean and rendered inactive.

It also added that there were no casualties or injuries. However, it reserves the right to:

respond ⁠to any ⁠hostile actions against it while warning parties to refrain ‌from escalating the conflict.

Iran has been targeting US air bases across the Middle East, along with RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus — a UK military base.

In Turkiye, both US forces and NATO allies use Incirlik Air Base. It is under the control of the Turkish air force but operates as a joint Turkish-US airbase.

Incirlik base is located ​in an area neighbouring Hatay province, where Turkish authorities said debris from the intercepting NATO missile had fallen.

During US-led operations in Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War, Incirlik was a critical logistics and air support location.

When the US and UK invaded Iraq in 2003, Turkiye denied them the use of Incirlik. However, they used it for anti-ISIS strikes from 2014.

So far, Turkish officials have not mentioned NATO Article 4. It states that NATO allies will:

consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of ​a member is threatened.

Since NATO’s creation in 1949, it has invoked Article 4 nine times.

Israel’s next target a NATO member?

Previously, Naftali Bennett, former Prime Minister of Israel, said that once Israel is finished with Iran, it will be targeting Turkiye.

Given that Turkiye is a NATO member, it will be interesting to see if any Western leaders finally grow a backbone when it’s one of their own.

He also claimed that:

A new Turkish threat is emerging… And from here I warn: Turkey is the new Iran. Erdogan is sophisticated, dangerous, and he seeks to encircle Israel.

Already, Israel is lining up its next victim, while it’s still carpet bombing Gaza, Iran and Lebanon.

And there you have it. Israel is not yet finished in its attempt to subjugate Iran, but without missing a beat, it is already marketing the next “threat” that must be defeated: Turkey.

“A new Turkish threat is emerging… And from here I warn: Turkey is the new Iran. Erdogan is… pic.twitter.com/KyWbu9p5mY

Advertisement

— Trita Parsi (@tparsi) February 24, 2026

Since the interception, an anonymous Turkish official has claimed that the missile was aimed at a base in Greek Cyprus. However, it “veered off course”.

A Turkish official, speaking to AFP on condition of anonymity, said the missile had been “aimed at a base in Greek Cyprus but veered off course”. https://t.co/Q7rj2j3OSB

— Faytuks Network (@FaytuksNetwork) March 4, 2026

Israel will not stop — it has proven that to the world time and time again. Will NATO finally care when Israel bombs a country with more of a white population? Or will its members still turn the other way and keep funding Israel’s defence and military aid, while it carpet bombs black and brown people in Palestine, Iran, Lebanon, and let’s face it — anywhere else Israel decides it wants to invade?

Feature image via Times Of India/YouTube

Keir Starmer (left), Mayor of the North East Kim McGuinness (centre) and chair of the Labour Party Anna Turley (right), September 2025 (PA Images / Alamy Live News)

3 min read55 min

In the wake of a devastating by-election defeat in Gorton and Denton, where Labour was pushed into third place in a historically safe seat, Turley addressed a meeting of socialist society executives over Zoom on Wednesday evening.

The Labour Party chair and MP for Redcar told the private online meeting of party-affiliated groups that “we have a big fight on our hands” ahead of the May elections in England, Scotland and Wales.

As Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood implements major reforms to the UK asylum system, Turley appeared to warn that Labour should not shift too far to the right on immigration.

First, she advised Labour to “find the right language to drive a wedge between the extreme nature of the Greens while also bringing back progressive voters”.

She continued: “Just as on the right we have a responsibility to pull back constituents who have understandable concerns about boats and asylum hotels. We have to address that in a way that stays true to our values on immigration.

“We also have to drive a wedge between ordinary voters with understandable concerns and the extreme, racist, divisive rhetoric of Reform, and the threat they pose to our country and our communities.”

Turley also appeared to criticise Labour’s offer to small businesses. She pointed out that while the government has provided “some extra relief for pubs” – which are receiving a 15 per cent cut to new business rates bills from April – those businesses are still facing “huge challenges” due to National Insurance increases.

She continued: “Minimum wage rises are important, but I now have hairdressers and other small businesses saying to me: you’ve helped the pubs, what about us?”

On the call, the Labour chair urged members and MPs to “think self-critically” about the Manchester by-election result, which saw Labour fall behind both the Green Party and Reform UK.

She explained that, in the lead up to polling day on 26 February, Labour estimated it was “marginally ahead on postal votes” and the outcome would be “very close” – but in the final few days “things seemed to break away from us and we need to understand why”.

Turley told the meeting: “Interestingly, our promise rate was holding up and it felt that way on the doors. But we need to understand the quality of that data. Were people being too polite to us? Were we reaching everyone in a household we wanted to reach? Were we taking away what we wanted to hear from conversations?”

The Labour chair went on to argue that there are now “lots of questions and challenges” about the impact that polling and “so-called independent bodies telling people about tactical voting” had on the Gorton and Denton result.

Tactical voting websites StopReformUK.Vote and Tactical.Vote recommended to voters that the best way to stop Reform in the by-election was to vote for the Green Party’s Hannah Spencer. She went on to win the seat with a majority of just over 4,400.

Labour was itself accused by the Greens of “desperation” when it distributed a leaflet apparently featuring a “fictitious” tactical voting company, Tactical Choice, which recommended a vote for Labour.

A source at the meeting told PoliticsHome: “People listening to that call would’ve been stunned. The leadership seem completely detached from what actually happened in the by-election. They’re treating this like a messaging problem when it’s a political one. They deserve a kicking.”

Anna Turley was approached for comment.